YOUR comments: On homosexuality

Since we have three posts for our "On homosexuality" section, I've closed the comments there and created this one thread to make it easier for you to comment after reading the reviews, watching the film or engaging in thoughtful reflection on what the Bible tells us. 

Comments

[Carrol Grady]

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I'm about to lose my patience! I wish that all of you who have such fine, hair-splitting biblically-based doctrinal arguments could just once experience the terrible, raw pain that is caused when good people approach this as a theoretical argument! I hope that you will all see the movie that started this blog. I hope that you will also watch a heart-breaking documentary I just saw - "Anyone and Everyone" - that is being shown on PBS stations around the country, as well as in film festivals. Look at anyoneandeveryone.com to see when it might be shown on TV where you live.

Please! No more rigid, cold, heartless comments until you are willing to see it through human eyes!

[Bertram Hiscock]

"God is not unfair to punish a young boy who has been forced to play the female in a homosexual relationship, whether by being raped or by being forced into a pederastic relationship." Really...

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Daneen said-

Perhaps you would tell me why you believe that God says people who are attracted to the same sex and unable to be attracted to the opposite sex should be denied the love and companionship to be found in such a union? In what ways do you see that as a sin?

Dave Hamstra said-

Your argument would make perfect sense to me if I did not believe we must use the specific instructions of scripture to navigate our course from the real to the ideal. The fact that scripture calls homosexual sex, in the forms that it was practiced back then, a sin tells me that, in spite of the fact that no marriage is ideal, God does not want us to use homosexual marriage as a way back to the ideal marriage as given in both creation narratives--one man and one woman.

I agree with David entirely. Our view of scripture shapes this debate. I do not share the loose notions of inspiration which seem to be required in order to make Daneens point plausible.

I could not sympathise more with Carol Grady when she says-

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I'm about to lose my patience! I wish that all of you who have such fine, hair-splitting biblically-based doctrinal arguments could just once experience the terrible, raw pain that is caused when good people approach this as a theoretical argument!

We need to find a way to approach our queer brothers and sisters in a way that does not cause us to be a stumbling block to them. I think Scripture is quite clear what it thinks of people who act in ways to damage the faith of those new to the Christian walk.

The point is that what to us may seem to be a clear discussion setting forth a plainly stated Biblical junction in the face of post-modern relativity is cited by many as having injured their walk with Christ. And we know that that is, as someone said on this discussion, a "vulgar" sin.

I would like to suggest that those who would like to see homosexuals experience less grief in our church give up the enterprise of trying to assert that anything other than male-female married sexual congress is somehow not sinful.

I personally believe that to be plain in scripture. I would also say that the paradigm shift you desire will not happen- paradigm shifts require an exemplar within this discussion there has been only one such person.

That person is the Word incarnate, Jesus Christ. Jesus does _not_ liberalize the bounds of sexual conduct as intended in creation and reinforced throughout scripture- He didn't come to overturn the law. However seen through the epistemology of the broken Christ we can begin to reframe our approach to sin to move beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees and into the perspective and practices exhibited by Christ.

This is _not_ relativity and I do _not_ condone extra-marital sexual relations. My strongest point would be that it is the responsibility of the church to spread the gospel even to the least of these (which would include homosexuals) and that our discourse has proved to be a stumbling block to the faith of persons which we are called to save.

I think our church would do well to reflect on the experiences of Carol and the many other families within us which feel this pain. It would be sinful of us to ignore them.
Thanks!

[Pat Travis]

That pesky old Bible written by old men, we just need to get rid of it! It just keeps getting in the way of my ideas, desires and relationships.

At minimum, we need to deconstruct the meaning of words and reframe it!

PS."Queer" brothers and sisters is perhaps about as politically incorrect as vulgar...at least in the US. :)

pt

[question]

Is this 'reframing' that Jesus did not respond to the adulterous woman like the religious mob wanted him to? A way to love sinners while calling them out of sin? And what the heck is a 'epistemology of the broken Christ'?

[Howard 'duke' Holtz]

As a gay but celibate adventist, I must say the Spectrum is indeed today's "Great Disappointment" for publishing this un-biblical, and un-Adventist trash. It is time for you guys to turn around and tell the adversary to leave. Better yet, just tell your guys to bend further over for him.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Ehh... not quite..

Back to the sinful woman.

These passages outline two very distinct issues:
1. How should the community relate to sinners
2. How should the sinner relate to sin

In my first comment I focused almost exclusively on a push back against those who would like to see the church soften its position again sexual immorality. I have mentioned but not elaborated on
1. spiritual violence
2. my push against 'happiness'
3. the epistemology of the broken Christ
4. what exactly is reframed
5. how I would propose we approach our queer brothers and sisters and their families

I apologize for not doing this in one push but I literally have been writing in the few minutes before classes. Now that finally internet is set up at my house I'll try and give this a dedicated effort.
Thanks!

[David Hamstra]

Daneen:

Thanks for distinguishing the difference between homosexual orientation and the opportunity for homosexual marriage in the ancient world. I see your point. But wouldn't that apply in many jurisdictions today?

Carol:

I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I think of this only in theoretical terms. I'm simply responding to certain questions that were asked in regards to hermeneutics. I don't want to minimize the suffering of homosexuals or their families; only to help point towards what I believe is the Biblical solution. I value the input your study and first hand experience brings to this conversation.

[arlyn]

Committed monogamous homosexual relationships were not a cultural possibility in Paul's time?

"sex marriage ceremonies of this type are first attested in A.D. 64 and 67, when the Emperor Nero, if our sources (all savagely critical) are to be believed, underwent two of them: the first, as a bride, to his wine steward, a freedman named Pythagoras; the second, as a groom to a castrated actor named Sporus who played the role of the bride. These marriage ceremonies conspicuously resemble the later weddings in Martial and Juvenal, their completeness, for instance, is emphasized in our sources. However, it remains unclear whether Nero's weddings should be regarded as having established the prototype for the later ones, or whether, instead, they simply participated in a tradition that was by 64 already established." Classical Studies Newsletter, Volume X, Winter 2004 Roman Same-Sex Weddings from the Legal PerspectiveBy Prof. Bruce W. Frier

I think it may have been a real possibility that Paul was aware of same sex weddings and possibly marriages back then.

[arlyn]

Nero was not monogamous, but others may have been quite serious in their weddings.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

1.What is spiritual violence?
Spiritual violence is something Soulforce talks a lot about. Spiritual violence is what Azusa Pacific did not show when this group visited my undergraduate campus.
a. when the mob wanted to stone the woman they were desiring to wreck violence on her
b. when Christ commanded her to sin no more he was not being spiritually violent
aa. when our discourse acts to serve as stones against brothers and sisters it is spiritual violence
bb. saying that homosexual expressions are sinful is _not_ inherently a spiritually violent event.

Both Christ and the mob identified the adulterous womans sins but Jesus responded with grace not stones in His calling her to a life without her sexual sin.

2. What is reframed: moving towards an epistemology of the broken Christ

Evil separates us from our creator and even on the cross the weight of the worlds sins were so great that Jesus cried out for what felt to him to be estrangement from His Father.

Christ on the cross is an utterly broken being- gone are triumphalist visions the apostles had for him for Christ didn’t come as a military or political leader- He came to suffer and die. In this broken Christ of the cross we are given a new way of understanding the world. Our broken Christ epistemology decides what is knowledge and what is not accepted as knowledge. In the broken body of Christ we discover a new way of interpreting and understanding the world. (this view, and practices to accompany it, are presented in a book written by one of my professors link)

Christ in His ministry approached sinners differently than the world did. When we see a sinner through the broken Christ we encounter someone not to be condemned and stoned but someone to be lovingly forgiven and called out of sin. We know what sin is yet understood through the broken Christ our view of sinners is reframed from that of the stoning crowd to that of the saving Christ and we approach sinners with forgiving grace and a gentle voice calling them out of their sin.

3. Beyond contemporary notions of happiness and towards Christian notions of discipleship

I have read before that it seems awfully cruel for God to create desires in us that cannot be acted out on. But where did our ideas of what constitutes happiness or even our right to 'happiness' come from? Does Christ really want us to suffer? Doesn’t Christ want us to be happy?

I think that our American or dominantly western views of happiness are hedonistic. This is poison within the church and we know the source- our culture has taught us that suffering is evil and the lack of suffering and the presence of pleasure is happiness. David Humes three part theodical question and the approach, attitudes and expectations it encapsulates, is something we should move away from.

Our push as a church should be away from contextually removed and abstracted philosophies on the nature of evil in relation to suffering as we see within Christ and Christianity no "solution" for the problem of evil but rather the creation of communities which make it possible for us to absorb suffering and keep suffering, a human condition, from becoming evil or something which separates us from God. We can start by beginning to know the world through the epistemology of the broken Christ.

Without this epistemological framework we are presented with people who come away from this specific question knowing that Christ must them to be happy therefore Christ would not afflict them with urges which could not be acted on. Rubbish! Christ did not create the suffering of the world- Christ suffers alongside us, more than us, on the cross where He died broken and feeling alone even. We often feel alone and abandoned but we should know that God is along us even as He was along Christ on the cross.

Acknowledging our kinship with homosexuals as fellow sinners condemned to die, we realize our sin is also recorded- our sins condemn us to the same death and separation from God which we wish to throw into their faces.

This is where Christ, and the church, meet the suffering and questioning homosexual family ostracized and stoned by his or her community. Our approach to the sinner should be as gracious and forgiving as Christ was to the adulterous woman.

Jesus totally changed her context, removing those people who would stone her by gently reminding them of their own sin He proceeded to forgive her and call her out of sin so she could be saved.

I would like to see our church create a community where homosexuals and their families can work through their specific suffering alongside with us in a way where we would all mutually benefit. I think our ostracizing them has been sinful and should be corrected. I think good work is being done in this regard and I look forward to what will come!
Thanks!

[Carrol Grady]

Arlyn, what I have tried to say before is that the understanding of homosexual "orientation," not behavior, was unknown in Paul's day. It was assumed that people "left" what was natural to engage in homosexual behavior. It was not until the late 18th century that the concept of "orientation" came about.

Johnny, I appreciate your sensitivity to the pain homosexuals experience. However, you attributed my comment to Daneen. It was I who asked, exactly what it is about homosexuals' love for each other that you believe is something God calls sin - as opposed, say, to incest, rape, adultery, or pornography. It seems that everyone is so concerned about the "sex" part of homosexuality. Is that all that heterosexual marriage is about? Of course not. Why wouldn't God want people who are unable to have the "ideal" heterosexual marriage, to have something as close to that as it is possible for them to have? Just as those who are unable to obey the Creation commmand to "be fruitful and multiply" are encouraged to adopt children or make use of modern fetility technology? Just what is it that you think God finds so sinful about two people loving each other and wanting to spend their lives together?

I have been studying this for nearly 20 years - and while I don't want to claim I'm an authority, I honestly do think we have read these few verses through prejudiced eyes. We fear people who are different - whom we cannot understand. These texts condemn same-sex behavior in certain situations, just as particular types of heterosexual behavior are condemned. The understanding that people are born with an orientation toward those of their own sex simply was not available when the Bible was written.

Inevitably, this kind of discussion comes down to different ways of interpreting and reading the Bible. But while we may not agree, can we not still show love, nurture and acceptance and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict, if my understanding is wrong?

As a friend of mine, who is an alcoholic, says: "Thank God for AA. No requirements for membership except a desire to stop drinking. Can you imagine if churches took that stance... the only requirement for membership is a DESIRE to know Christ/God??? The pews would be packed!"

[arlyn]

Dear Carol,
"Orientation" as a word applied to homosexuality may have been from 18th century.

However, homosexuality as nature or natural preference for the same gender seemed to be accepted by the romans as just another preference: as natural as individual likes for blondes or brunettes. They were against raping young boys, and despised effeminate men, but did not outlaw homosexuality or homosexual weddings or homosexual marriages until the latter christianized emperors came in to power. And homosexual weddings, (perhaps marriages too) seemed to exist in the first century. So Paul was probably aware of this understanding yet completely disagreed with the secular culture around him. This is the picture I am getting from my recent historical researching.

The argument that Paul's injunctions are limited by his ignorance(of homosexuality being a natural state of preference, or being exemplified in a monogamous marriage-like union during his lifetime) doesn't seem valid to me anymore.

But honestly, you've done much more reading than I (who only started during this blog conversation)on this topic. Please redirect me to better sources if I am in error. I do want to learn, because I am still undecided on this issue.

ps. my previous post on Aquinas was to point out that he believed homosexuality was natural therefore not culpable, and that "unnatural" uses of body parts doesn't qualify as sin, i.e. hands for walking, so "unnatural" is merely another term for un-usual in his thinking. The natural world exhibits a percentage of homosexuality and hemphradite ability without moral guilt.

[Chris Blake]

About 18 years ago when I was editor of Insight we published an issue called "What We Don't Talk About." The subjects were date rape, masturbation, and incest. (I thought I'd gather all the complaints into one issue.)

In the beginning we had planned to also include the subject of homosexuality, but eventually determined that it was worthy of its own issue. For the next two years I researched the topic, read thousands of pages, talked to scores of people (including Carrol Grady and Ron Lawson, whom I now consider friends) of all sexual identities, attended conferences, and eventually wrote a 9,700-word article for Insight in 1992, one that's been largely reprinted in my latest book. Here were 12 fundamental conclusions I reached:

1. There's a difference between being a homosexual and practicing homosexuality.
2. Virtually nobody chooses to be homosexual.
3. The number or proportion of homosexuals is highly disputed. (It's definitely not 10 percent of the general population.)
4. Many gays are not gay about their sexual orientation.
5. "Gay bashing" is never acceptable, especially for Christians.
6. Many fears about homosexuality are irrational.
7. Few homosexuals are parading militants.
8. Changing one's homosexual orientation is apparently difficult and rare.
9. Homosexuals can be genuine, model Christians.
10. Being a homosexual is not a sin.
11. There is no scriptural support for practicing homosexuality.
12. The problem won't just go away. [As evidenced by this unending thread.]

I stopped short of Kinship's stance of asking the church to affirm committed homosexual marriages (I see no problem with civil unions). For my efforts, as you might imagine, I took flak from all sides. (Of course, I took this as indisputable evidence that I was walking aright along the golden mean...)

At the end of the article I wrote, "Homosexuals can be members in good and regular standing of any Seventh-day Adventist church. They can hold church offices: If an alcoholic who doesn't drink alcohol can hold any church office, a homosexual who doesn't practice homosexuality can hold any church office."

Since that time I've thought long about my stance. I have to say this, and wish others would comment: If the Adventist church were to solemnify homosexual marriage, it would tear this church to bits. Look at what has happened to our Epicopalian and Methodist friends. Decades later, this is still a cause celebre, a lightning rod, the main focus. I have grappled with this issue to the depths of my being: Is it worth the rending if virtually all else is sacrificed?

On the other hand, I recognize that opponents to slavery once said the same thing.

In any case, the practical effects of following this path are rarely considered, but surely ought to be. Perhaps some worthy posters could speak to this practical matter.

[arlyn]

So- this is the clear path for the progressive "indie" movement of Adventist progressives if they really want to pull away from the mainstream- just choose women's ordination and performing homosexual marriages- to delineate new boundaries. The cleaving from the main body will be surgically clear.

[Chris Blake]

Interesting alignment, Arlyn: women's ordination and homosexual marriage. The magnetic pulls of unity and freedom--of belonging and individuality, accountability and love--always create tension, don't they? Whether or not we believe in the rightness of either cause, the tension exists.

I misspoke in one line earlier. It should read: "I recognize that proponents of slavery once said the same thing." At one time those like William Wilberforce who fought against the millennia-old, status quo, biblically based strictures of slavery also made the cleaving from the main body surgically clear.

But it didn't make them wrong.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Chris,
Are you suggesting that homosexuals enter into civil unions which the church would not bless, unions which would not exhibit homosexual practices (i.e. sex)?
Thanks!

[Carrol Grady]

I took a break to attend a concert - famed Brazilian classical guitar duo, Sergio and Odair Assad - fabulous!

But back to the discussion at hand, Nice to see your comments, Chris. I would just say, regarding the number of homosexuals, I remember reading in the last US census that some 5% self-identified as gay or lesbian. When you add that to all the in-the-closet gays and lesbians, I wouldn't be surprised if it came in near 10%. About ten years ago, I was told on the QT that the GC family ministries department had done a confidential survey in all the world divisions except NAD,and their questions on this particular issue showed roughly 10% around the world.

Arlyn, thanks for asking about other reading on homosexuality in the ancient world. I'm not real good at remembering where I read things (my memory's not what it used to be!) but I believe at least two of the books in the "Theology" section on the "Suggested Reading" page of my website have a good discussion of this. And I'm pretty sure one of them was _Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture_, a collection of essays on both sides of the issue, edited by David L Balch. If you really want to do some in-depth study of the subject, from various angles, I have a pretty good list of books there - not to mention all the other material on my website.

Chris, the more history I read, the more I see the parallels between this current issue and earlier ones. In fact, it seems to me that God has slowly but surely brought new light to societal and cultural understanding of many different moral and ethical issues through the centuries.

By the way, I was really hoping someone would comment - critical or otherwise - on my post a few pages back about my understanding of "present truth."

[Carrol Grady]

Chris, you asked if it's worth rending our church to achieve justice on this issue. (I guess justice is my word). I have been following carefully the struggles of other denominations, not to mention other religions, and I think it depends on the church culture and how they manage it. Unfortunately, our church has had the habit of not wanting to discuss controversial issues (except on the Spectrum blog!). Even though our church pioneers discussed and debated many things early in our history, not it's usually "my way or the highway." Sad. The church I have most admired is the Lutheran (ELCA) denomination. They have not gone ahead of the main body of the church, but have continued to discuss and educate and slowly the tide is turning. Of course, all this has been done with deep emotion. I have several videos of their struggles, including their semi-annual (or is it bi-annual - every two years) general conference, where pleas were made by straight young people, gay and lesbian pastors, and the former church president who was instrumental in passing the requirement that g/l pastors must be celibate and later acknowledged this as a mistake and pleaded with the church to overturn it (it wasn't). I have a whole section of stories about various denominations on my website.

I happen to know of MANY church leaders - pastors, educators, editors, administrators - who do side with a change in our official church position, but dare not speak their mind. WHY can't we openly discuss this, with courtesy and respect? The Bible says "Perfect love casts out fear." I can only conclude that our church has not yet reached a state of perfect love.

[Joselito Coo]

Though I'm not a cinema-goer, I enjoy watching movie documentaries and other works. Ken Burns' The War, for example. Movies, we're told (I’m citing someone else for I’m far from being a film critic), are creative, imaginative works of art. Not that film-makers invent the facts. Nonetheless, it's worth bearing in mind that they present only a slice of reality for viewers to experience. Thanks to the main Spectrum reviewers of "For the Bible Tells Me So". Your comments were absolutely educational for me.

Carrol, my suggestion of a post-colonial hermeneutic was a reminder to me in particular that you and I may read the Scriptures with special lenses that were made either in America or in a former American colony in Asia. Still, we can agree the essential message of the Good Book is the same: "Jesus Loves Even Me!" Fact of the matter is, all cultures and every sub-culture create their own version of truth.

About my son. you may still remember asking me, by e-mail, if I would permit him to join you, together with his friend, David, for a public presentation at Andrews. (My wife is a music AU alum.) Earlier, my son had already sent us a copy of your book that was being promoted. At the same time, apparently to further support your case and to reassure me that it was okay to accept your invitation, he also told me to be sure to read James Dobson! It was (would have been) a perfect present-day illustration of a Bible story, at least from your point of view and your kind of advocacy, of a Latino David and an Asian Jonathan.

[arlyn]

Dear Chris,

Thanks for not assuming that I am advocating the dissidents leaving the church. I believe it was because Wilberforce stayed in Parliament continuing to agitate without being kicked out, that eventually enabled the whole ship to turn.

You are right about the tension, what I find most fascinating in these discussions of homosexuality is how protectors of victims treat the perpetrators. Can we really love our enemies? in spite of them being so wrong, hateful, ignorant, obstinate? Or do we mirror the opposing side in our "righteous" passions too?

Dear Carol,
I am sorry, but I don't have the time to become a full expert on this issue of homosexuality by reading many books or want to devote such intensive efforts into it. I just want to understand how to take Paul's clear language on this topic responsibly. In other words, can a literalist be convinced on historical contextual evidence to limit Paul's denouncement to promiscuous gay behavior only?

(Anybody else have the historical sources that prove Paul couldn't have been aware of the natural preference for homosexuality or of the possibility of long term monogamous homosexual "marriages" in his lifetime?)

[Daneen Akers]

I've had to take a break for a bit during the week (class schedule), but I've enjoyed coming back to see conversation--I've really appreciated your thoughts Chris. I'd already planned on getting your latest book, and now I've got another reason to do so.

I also think it's interesting that women's ordination and homosexual marriage got tossed together here. I actually think they're quite connected--as you say, "The magnetic pulls of unity and freedom--of belonging and individuality, accountability and love--always create tension, don't they? Whether or not we believe in the rightness of either cause, the tension exists."

In the reading I've done, I've come to see this issue very much along the lines of slavery. Many, many committed Christians felt that it would rip apart not just the church but the country (and they were right) to end slavery, and they found numerous support from scripture to firmly ground their opinion in the Bible. (As many have said here, "It's quite clear what the Bible teaches on what sexual congress is allowed....")

Johnny--you did misquote me--that was Carroll (although I'm flattered).

Arlyn--I'm sure you don't mean for your last post to come across the way it does. It sounds like you're saying you want a firm, grounded, researched opinion, but you don't want to take the time to do the reading yourself.

Sorry...gotta run to class; no time for much of anything articulate today.

[David Hamstra]

Chris:

What would you have done, as editor of Insight, if after all your research had come to the opposite conclusion on point 11? I think the answer to this question would your personal commitment to scripture and your perception of this church's corporate commitment to scripture. But perhaps it is the notion that homosexual unions are not supported by scripture that leads you to the conclusion that solemnizing them would tear this church apart.

This church is made huge changes in the past (righteousness by faith, trinitarianism, and an unacknowledged, through evident, reemphasizing of the investigative judgment doctrine) without being torn apart, but this unity was based on scripture.

[arlyn]

Daneen,

Thanks for letting me know how my words came across. I guess I'm impatient to nail down this historical fact that everyone keeps assuming is true about the Greco-Roman culture at this moment.

All the other OT and NT allusions to homosexuality both philosophical and moral and text-based exegetical interpretation will be explored at another time. I just want one point nailed down well- since it was brought up as a major weakness in Paul's experience/exposure.

Is that naive of me to ask for one sound source of a historical "fact" that has been referenced to? I am willing to read, but direct me accurately to the question I am asking first, then one's credibility about the other historical references will be strengthened, for it has not been established yet since I found the opposite scenario to be possible from a scholarly source in a quick search.

[Anonymous]

Carrol,

I have been loosely following this thread. I'm not an Adventist, but I was raised one, and in a homophobic family. It took me 6 years to not feel uncomfortable around gay people, but it was something I was determined to do, something I wanted to get rid of inside of me, the prejudice. Your words give me hope that there will be change in the Adventist church. I am so glad you write what you do, and that you are so firm and loving and unafraid.

I think theoretical arguments will get us nowhere also and I'm hoping this thread will move away from that. What do you think those of us who agree with this mindset can do to help change things? What can we do on a daily basis to spread that love and change?

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

It is interesting that Plato is quoted in this thread. If one takes the time one can use Plato to pad any argument. Here is how one Google Site describes Plato's thinking on sexuality.

"Plato believed that love between two men is superior to that between a man and a woman. Plato called this love "uranian" love and suggested this love was ruled by a different aspect of the goddess Aphrodite. At a time when male homosexual love was unequal between an older man and his student, Plato advocated for these relationships to become equal and based on reciprocity. Also, in contrast to Greek custom, he believed that these relationships should be life-long. To Plato, love is more than just the physical act, and the goal of love is the moral and intellectual improvement of the younger partner with the help of the older one. This is has come to be known as "platonic" love. Over time the term has become distanced from its roots, and is used to describe non-sexual love and friendship.

In The Republic, Plato advances the idea of an army of male lovers that becomes the model for the Sacred Band of Thebes. He believed that an army of lovers would be stronger than an even an army made up of a family or tribe. Soldiers would have a vested interest in protecting their lovers, and in fighting so as not to lose face in the presences of their beloved."
Tom

[Carrol Grady]

Hi, Arlyn. I guess it's only fitting, then, that I do the work of looking up the references I mentioned, since I'm retired and, therefore, have more time. (However, if you believe that, it's because you're not yet retired!)

I think we are still talking at cross-purposes, though. I do not say that Paul is talking only about promiscuous same-sex behavior, but that he believed that any same-sex behavior, promiscuous or not, was a perversion of man's natural desires given by God - in other words, he did not understand (nor did anyone else at that time), in the way we do today, that some people are born without a natural desire for the opposite sex and with a natural desire for the same sex.

It was good for me to go back and review all this, but I find it virtually impossible to effectively summarize all the schools of thought and cultural influences that are discussed. So I will try to mention just some of the highlights.

In the essay, "Same-Sex Eros: Paul and the Greco-Roman Tradition," William Schoedel (U of Illinois retired professor of classics and religious studies says that the Greek philosophers objected to "excessive pleasure" in both hetero and homo sex, and it is in this sense that Paul speaks of "degrading passions." Plato also believed that sex should be for procreative purposes only (so that's where the Catholics got it!), although Paul doesn't mention this.

It was actually Aristophanes, not Plato, who invented the myth of the three kinds of creatures who were cut in half, explaining why some people apparently had a "deep-seated" desire for the same sex. But Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the same time frame as Paul, rejected Aristophanes' myth and refused to recognize any sexually ambivalent image, which resulted in his unambivalent opposition to same-sex eros.

Plato considered the typical, socially acceptable man/boy relationships as incest, and criticized what he saw as the effeminization of the submissive. youthful partners. Philo believed this caused the "disease of effeminacy" in their souls.

Soranus, a physician of the period, believed that 1) animals do no exhibit homosexual behavior (which we know today is not true), 2) the parts of the body have obvious purposes, and 3) that homosexual behavior is insatiable.

This gives you a picture of the understanding of those days, and in particular how a fellow Jew, Philo, regarded homosexual behavior. I realize that this is inconclusive, but perhaps we cannot know exactly what Paul had in mind. There is so much more, but you would need to read it yourself to get the entire picture.

Another interesting essay, "The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Romans 1:24-27" by Robert Jewett, a professor emeritus at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, is also from the book I mentioned earlier, edited by Balch.

[Carrol Grady]

Good to hear your thoughts, Anonymous. I guess the only thing I think we can do is to live our lives with integrity with our vision of love for our brothers and sisters, to continue to challenge ignorance and prejudice in a firm but loving way when we can, and pray. I believe the Holy Spirit is the only One who can really change minds.

[Chris Blake]

Apologies for this somewhat tardy response; grades were due this mo(u)rning.

Johnny, I am not suggesting that homosexual civil unions be sexless. At this point in my infinitely limited understanding I'm suggesting that a civil ceremony may solemnize (the correct verb--sorry about concocting another earlier) such a union where the church may not. I recognize that some might see this as opening the floodgates to incestuous marriages or polygamy, but I don't buy the slippery slope analogies. Society has always drawn a line somewhere: At 17 years and 364 days you can't vote; at 18 years and one second you can. What matters is where the line is drawn.

Carrol, I always enjoy dialoguing with you. My sense is that a U.S. census allows most in-the-closet gays and lesbians to legitimately identify themselves. (Anecdotal QT stats don't work for me.) The stats I've considered reputable place the number of gays and lesbians (not bisexuals) at 2-4 percent of the adult populace, though these numbers don't matter a great deal to me.

I do agree with your takes on "present truth" and selective literalism. The Lutheran (ELCA) denomination's slow approach on this issue is laudable, though they carry a radically different ethos and organizational structure from Seventh-day Adventism. Your description of their bi-annual general conference debates, I must say, confirms my concern about this issue's dominating discussion and dissension for the foreseeable future.

To "do justly" is, naturally, a Christian imperative. What is "scripturally based," as David Hamstra implies, also provides impetus. Yes, perfect love indeed compels us to live fearlessly--but not irresponsibly. (To be reckless is to be feckless.)

Speaking the truth in love, we are therefore not afraid to die for a just cause; we are also unwilling to kill for one. Even, as I apprehend, to kill a flawed but vibrant denomination.

[Carrol Grady]

Well, Chris, maybe we have to wait a generation - if the world lasts that long.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Chris said-

11. There is no scriptural support for practicing homosexuality.

You then said-

I am not suggesting that homosexual civil unions be sexless. At this point in my infinitely limited understanding I'm suggesting that a civil ceremony may solemnize (the correct verb--sorry about concocting another earlier) such a union where the church may not.

However my concern isn't the one you argued against, it is that you would have Scripture and the church condemn homosexual practices and not perform same sex marriage yet advocate that we vote for policy in opposition to our beliefs.

Now I do believe that our faith should influence how we approach politics but it seems on this issue that you're arguing that Scripturally sound belief should take a back seat to, as you say, "do[ing] justly".

It's an interesting notion of justice for sure...

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

ps.
The concern you argued against being-

I recognize that some might see this as opening the floodgates to incestuous marriages or polygamy, but I don't buy the slippery slope analogies.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

I like the response of Galileo (under his breath of course) "It still moves!" It is still wrong! Please don't bring David and Jonathan into the discussion. Tom

[Joselito Coo]

Please note the context of my post, responding to Carrol:

"About my son, you may still remember asking me, by e-mail, if I would permit him to join you, together with his friend, David, for a public presentation at Andrews. (My wife is a music AU alum.) Earlier, my son had already sent us a copy of your book that was being promoted. At the same time, apparently to further support your case and to reassure me that it was okay to accept your invitation, he also told me to be sure to read James Dobson! It was (would have been) a perfect present-day illustration of a Bible story, at least from your point of view and your kind of advocacy, of a Latino David and an Asian Jonathan."

As far as I know, all the time my son lived with us at home, together with his two younger siblings, he made friends with no special preference based on the other person's gender. On Jonathan's account, it was during his music studies in the USA when for the first time he was asked by an older adult: "Are you gay?"

Fast forward to Carrol's role and special interest in trying to help define my son's sexual identity. That was 7 years ago. I still don't share Carrol's perspective. My son remains single (unpartnered?). Admittedly, my family's journey together with him may be far from over. Only God knows.

[arlyn]

Dear Carrol,

Thank you kindly for the references to the named philosophers and medical thoughts of Paul's time. I will enjoy pursuing these as the background to Paul's understandings.

Thanks for going the second mile to buttress your point.

[Hector]

This issue is a very sensitive issue and a hot topic in our society. The majority of Americans today are religious and do not accept homosexuality as being part of their lives, although it already is part of our culture. Some other denomination of Christians believe that it is a sin against God and because He condemns it himself in His word through the Bible ( Leviticus 20:13) they go to the extremities of the word. But shall we forbid homosexuals into our churches and become not part of our congregations, when the very word of the Lord (which we assume to follow) condemns it? In that context of extremity, the Lord also condemns Sabbath breaking and adultery, which would also cause condemnation if broken. Although we allow those that have broken the Sabbath and have committed adultery back into the fold. Why? Simply because they have repented and left their "life of sin"? Yes! Which is made possible through the death and acceptance of Jesus (John 8:10-11). So therein, from a biblical standpoint, we see that Jesus forgives (yes even gays) but then asserts that they must "Go now and leave [their] life of sin". So if then being homosexual (practicing) is in fact a sin in the Bible (in the words of God), returning to the fold is granted and should be accepted, although (since Christ paid the price for our lives) there is something that has to be done, which is to "leave [the] life of sin" and return no more to it.
Although leaving a life of homosexuality alone is not as simple. You see being gay is a life style, although many would contend that they are born gay. But in this context, we figure that we were all created in an image and not one for the purpose of being gay, we have to see the effects of life and situations that lead to homosexuality (the life style). As impossible as it may seem to leave a sort of life where temptation and sexual desire is the cause of life style, we must put testimony to the test. For example; was not the great Apostle Paul a tyrant against the true church? And Mary Magdalene was she not a prostitute before she washed the feet of Jesus? So therein we see that through Jesus nothing is impossible. So then is a full 180 change from homosexuality impossible? No! Must we then accept homosexuals in our church and become member side-by-side? No! Because we must hate the sin not the sinner, for the former gay is not longer gay within the effect of change. So we must serve them Jesus but they must let Jesus work, and only if they allow Him to work will the impossibility become a marvelous possibility in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior!